UNDP comments on Zero Draft of the
Post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction1
UNDP welcomes the current zero draft, which represents significant improvement over the pre-zero draft.
We thank UNISDR and the Bureau members for their leadership and look forward to working with
member-states and other stakeholders to support further refinement of the framework as the process
goes forward.
This paper provides our comments on the zero draft in two parts. The first part provides overall
comments on the entire framework followed by specific comments and suggestions on the specific
articles/ paragraphs of the zero draft.
 Overall Emphasis: The framework should provide a clear vision for disaster risk that integrates as a
substantial and indelible part of economics, poverty and development. Climate change needs to be
emphasised a ‘game-changer’ rather than a driver of risk.
 Disaster Risk and Development: The document makes repeated references to the drivers of disaster
risk and the need to address these as a means to achieving resilience. Much emphasis continues to be
on “risk reduction” as a distinct activity as opposed to making disaster risk concerns an integral part
of sustainable development. The draft could be strengthened by more explicitly acknowledging the
contribution of the development process in generating risk. This could then be the starting point for
transforming development itself.
 Disaster Risk and Climate Change: While the document recognizes the Climate change as a driver of
risk, it is important to highlight that the global debate generated by climate change issues could be
used as an opportunity to gain political traction on disaster risk reduction issues as well. The draft
currently treats climate change as one of several risk drivers; however, climate change needs to be
seen as integral and part of a recalibration of this framework compared to the HFA. To that extent
linkage with climate change could be a ‘game-changer’.
 Alignment between global policy processes: It follows logically from the above two points that a
more deliberate alignment is sought between the HFA2, SDGs and the post-2015 climate framework.
Especially, a clearer role for climate change adaptation (now a substantial financing and policy ‘route’
for DRR) in reducing disaster risk needs to be articulated. Similarly, HFA2 should be aligned explicitly
with the DRR related elements of SDGs. Since the SDG and CC policy processes will conclude after the
HFA2, it is important that the HFA2 highlights the need to align its measurement system (targets,
indicators, reporting cycles, timelines etc.) with these.
 Articulation of HFA2 priority areas: UNDP recommends the structure of the framework be opened
for discussion. At present we see three inter-connected areas that could be explored for
improvement: the relationship between the priority areas through to the goal, the role and
articulation of the priority area on resilience, and, very much connected to this, how each of the
priority areas will work together. The inter-relationship between the four proposed priority areas
needs to be made clearer. We recommend articulation of a clear Theory of Change to underpin the
HFA2. Such a ToC will:
o Highlight the connections between the long-term HFA2 outcome and goal to the
intermediate priority areas and targets using credible evidence;
o Elaborate and justify how the five priority areas fit and how each priority area will address
the challenges linked to achieving the overall outcome and goal; and
1
To discuss this further please connect with Jan Kellett in Geneva (jan.kellett@undp.org) and Kamal Kishore in New York
(kamal.kishore@undp.org)
1
o


Elaborate assumptions and risks associated with achieving the overall expected outcome and
goal of HFA2.
This will then help ensure that there is adequate focus on all issues, and there are direct and logical
connections between the framework goal, priority areas and targets as well synergies with wider
development processes. In addition there is worth in considering whether the current four priority
areas need to be further unpacked or realigned2.
Disaster Risk, Fragility and Conflict: The zero draft recognizes conflict as a driver of disaster risk in
some contexts. There is a need to further emphasize that the roll out of HFA2 will take into account
conflict and fragility dimensions in such situations. Further, roll out of HFA2 in such contexts will
require alignment with other policy processes (e.g. the New Deal) that have been explicitly designed
to address the needs of fragile countries.
Means of Implementation: There is considerably opportunity now to spell out clearly what different
institutions and actors should bring with regard to disaster risk. The current version tends to
underplay the significant support provided by the wider UN family, international financial institutions
and other stakeholders. Similarly the financing references in the document need to be strengthened
and deepened throughout the document, with key elements being national commitments to finance
DRR and an articulation of a wider opportunities and channels of financing.
The following table provides specific re-wording proposals for the respective paragraphs of the Zero draft
Post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction as well as recommendations that contribute towards
practically developing the text, based upon the comments highlighted above:
2
In this regard UNDP supports aspects of the World Bank’s suggestion to further unpack the priority areas, as submitted to the co-chairs on
November 11th 2014.
2
Paragraph
Number
In many places
Text
3.
“Evidence indicates that exposure of people and assets in all
countries has increased faster than vulnerability2 has
decreased, thus generating new risk and a steady rise in
disasters losses with significant socio-economic impact in the
short, medium and long term, especially at the local and
community level.”
focused on tackling underlying risk drivers and compounding
factors,
need to: focus action on understanding risk and how it is
created;
Developing countries, in particular small island developing
States, landlocked developing countries, least developed
countries and Africa need special attention and support
through bilateral and multilateral channels
These next three points in paras 3, 5, 10 all address the issue of generation of
risk and its components. The concepts of vulnerability and exposure increase
may not be fully understood by policy makers. It is suggested that the text
directly highlights that the development process itself is a key driver of
disaster risk.
The concurrent post-2015 processes on sustainable
development, climate change and
disaster risk provide the international community with a
unique opportunity to ensure coherence and alignment
across policies, practices and partnerships for
implementation.
The prevention of disaster risk creation and the
Since the SDG and CC policy processes will conclude after the HFA2, it is
important that in addition to this text, the HFA2 highlights the need to align
its measurement system (targets, indicators, reporting arrangements) with
these.
5.
10.
7.
9.
12.
Comment
Ensure a consistent use of the DRR terminology throughout the document.
13
Reduce disaster economic loss by [a given percentage in
function of number of hazardous events] by 20[xx];
13
damage to health and educational facilities by
We welcome the focus on these groups of countries. However, in addition
we would highlight the importance of focus on high risk middle-income
countries that are characterised by high rates of economic growth, fragility
coupled with low capacity.
This is an important aspect. However, the language needs to be simplified. In
addition climate and climate adaptation needs to be mentioned here.
Reducing total disaster economic loss is extremely difficult especially in
growing economies. A better measure would be proportion of GDP lost
measured at national or sub-national levels.
The rationale for singling out these two sectors is not evident. Since HFA2
states a focus on SIDS and Africa, prioritizing sectors such as agriculture and
environment/natural resource management would be equally important.
Therefore, it suggested that HFA2includes a provision for development of
sectoral risk reduction plans depending of national/ regional contexts as part
of its implementation plans.
3
13.
xx]; and increase number of countries with national and local
strategies by [a given percentage] by 20[xx].
Reviews of the HFA strongly suggest that output driven targets do not allow
an understanding of achievements towards disaster reduction outcomes.
Instead a target could be explored expenditure on DRR. Such a target would
encourage development of robust financial tracking systems fro DRR.
Para 15 H
Disaster risk reduction requires transparent risk-informed
decision-making based on open and genderspecific/sex/age/disability-disaggregated data, and freely
available, accessible, up-to-date, easy-to-understand,
science-based, non-sensitive risk information complemented
by local, traditional and indigenous knowledge, as relevant.”
All actors are encouraged to build multi-stakeholder
partnerships, at all levels, as appropriate, and on a voluntary
basis, to contribute to the implementation of this framework.
States and other actors are also encouraged to promote the
strengthening or establishment of national, regional and
international volunteer corps, which can be made available to
countries and to the international community to contribute
to addressing vulnerability and reducing disaster risk.
The text needs to be simplified.
19. Taking into account the experience gained through the
implementation of the HFA, and in pursuit of the expected
outcome and goal, there is a need for focused action across
sectors by States at local, national, regional and global levels
in the following priority areas:
1) Understanding disaster risk;
2) Strengthening governance and institutions to manage
disaster risk;
3) Investing in economic, social, cultural and environmental
resilience;
4) Enhancing preparedness for effective response, and
building back better in recovery and reconstruction.
There needs to be a stronger linkage between the priority areas and the
targets set out in section B.
17.
19
22 and 23
22d
d) Build the capacity of local government officials, public
servants, communities and volunteers through sharing of
This is too general. There is an opportunity to explore innovative approaches
that are based on more recent understand of governance systems/ networks
for DRR.
Throughout these sections a stronger showing of understanding climate risk
is required.
This article would be better placed in the governance section since it
emphasized capacity development for DRR. If it should remain here then the
4
22j
25b
25h
27.
28a
28 E & G
experience, training and learning programmes on disaster
risk reduction, targeting specific sectors to ensure consistent.
focus should be placed on CD for risk assessment or disaster information
systems.
As regards terminology, now capacity development is regarded as the more
appropriate terminology.
j) Promote national strategies to strengthen public education
and awareness of risk information and knowledge through
campaigns, social media, community mobilization and other
available means, taking into account specific audiences and
their needs.
Adopt and implement national and local plans, across
different timescales aimed at addressing short, medium and
long term disaster risk, with targets, indicators and
timeframes;
Added clause, indicated in bold: Promote national strategies and develop
capacities to strengthen public education and awareness of risk information
and knowledge through campaigns, social media, community mobilization
and other available means, taking into account specific audiences and their
needs.
This article needs to mentioned an integrated planning approach that
encompasses disasters, climate change, environment and development.
Stimulate, in accordance with national practices, the
development of quality standards and mechanisms, including
certifications, for disaster risk management, with the
participation of the private sector and professional
associations and scientific organizations.
Priority 3: General Point.
a) Allocate resources at all levels of administration for the
development and the implementation of disaster risk
reduction policies, plans, laws and regulations in all relevant
sectors;
e) Promote the incorporation of disaster risk assessment into
rural development planning and management, in particular
with regard to mountain and coastal flood plain areas,
including through the identification of land zones that are
available and safe for human settlement;
The notion of “mainstreaming” through national development planning and
programming could be included here.
The text needs to highlight that quality standards should be commensurate
with the available capacities and resources in a given context. In order to
continually improve these standards, investment needs to be made in
developing local capacities.
This priority could be more comprehensive and its practical implementation
clearer. Its links with other priority areas of HFA2 as well as with the SDGs
could be made more explicit.
Resource allocation should be mandatory by law (in addition to resource
allocation for implementation of law and regulations).
There is inconsistency in approach/methodology. Whilst (e) speaks of
incorporating risk assessment into development; (g) speaks of integrating
disaster risk reduction into sectoral development. Instead, we suggest
“incorporating disaster risk reduction” in both instances, wherein risk
assessments are implicit.
g) Enhance the resilience of health systems by integrating
disaster risk reduction into primary health care, especially at
local level developing the capacity of health workers in
5
28 I and J
28 f
29 a, b and c
understanding risk, applying and implementing disaster risk
reduction approaches in health work, and supporting and
training community health groups in disaster risk reduction
approaches;
i) Strengthen policy, technical and institutional capacities in
local and national disaster risk management, including those
related to technology, training, and human and material
resources;
j) Review existing financial and fiscal instruments in order to
support risk-sensitive public and private investments, and
promote the integration of disaster risk reduction
considerations and measures in economic valuations,
investment tracking, cost-benefit analyses, competitiveness
strategies, investment decisions, debt ratings, risk analysis
and growth forecasts, budgeting and accounting, and the
determination of incentives;
f) Encourage the revision of existing or the development of
new building codes, standards, rehabilitation and
reconstruction practices at the national or local levels, as
appropriate, with the aim of making them more applicable in
the local context, particularly in informal human settlements,
and reinforce the capacity to implement, monitor and
enforce such codes, including through a consensus-based
approach;
a) Recognize the different multilateral processes, work
through the United Nations and other relevant institutions
and processes, as appropriate, to promote coherence at all
levels and across sustainable development, climate change
and disaster risk reduction policies, plans and programs;
These are capacity issues, and best placed, within the current structure,
within the governance section.
See additional clause: “…with the aim of making them not only applicable to
local context but also to available capacities and resources, particularly in
informal human settlements, and reinforce the capacity to implement,
monitor and enforce such codes, including through a consensus-based
approach;”
These are essentially governance issues and should be moved to governance
section.
b) Promote the development and strengthening, as relevant,
of financial, risk transfer and risk sharing mechanisms in close
cooperation with business and international financial
institutions;
c) Enhance the engagement with institutions involved with
financial regulation in an effort to better understand the
6
impacts of disasters on the financial stability of countries,
companies and individuals, and thereby promote key policy
developments around financial stability and inclusion.
30
31 b
31 e and f
31 g and h
40c
40 f
Continue to further strengthen early warning systems and
tailor them to the needs of users, including social and cultural
requirements;
e) Adopt public policies and establish coordination and
funding mechanisms
and procedures to plan and prepare for post-disaster
recovery and reconstruction;
f) Ensure the engagement of diverse institutions, multiple
authorities and stakeholders at all levels, in view of the
complex and costly nature of post-disaster reconstruction;
g) Learn from the recovery and reconstruction programs over
the HFA decade and exchange experience knowledge and
lessons learned in order to develop guidance for
preparedness for reconstruction, including on land use
planning and structural standards improvement;
h) Promote the incorporation of disaster risk management
into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes and
use opportunities during the recovery phase to develop
capacities that reduce disaster risk in the medium term,
including through the sharing of expertise, knowledge and
lessons learned.
c) Mainstream disaster risk reduction measures appropriately
into multilateral and bilateral development assistance
programmes, including those related to poverty reduction,
natural resource management, urban development and
adaptation to climate change.
United Nations system entities, including funds, programs,
and specialized agencies, through the United Nations Plan of
Action on Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience… are called
Add this to the end of the paragraph: ‘addressing disasters as part of the
development continuum instead of separate events along with better
understanding of and access to information on long-term climate trends will
ultimately support this priority.’
Additional element in bold: “strengthen end-to-end early warning systems
and tailor them to the needs of users, including social and cultural
requirements;”
Both of these are actually governance issues. Its not clear why they are here
in the preparedness section.
These are the only paragraphs that address the issue of recovery. In view of
the lessons learned during the HFA decade, it is imperative that HFA2
provides more elaborate guidance on recovery.
We suggest, para 31g to include reference not only “guidance for
preparedness” but also other governance dimensions of recovery including
institutional arrangements, policies, legislation, financial mechanisms and
accountability frameworks.
We suggest, para 31h should also highlight post-disaster needs assessments
as well as development of recovery frameworks.
This article is best placed in the governance section under priority 1 as it
relates to global and regional level implementation.
In general the role of the UN (as well as other stakeholders) should be further
elaborated. The UN plan of action should be presented as one of several
frameworks that guides UN support to disaster risk reduction. In particular,
7
upon to ensure optimum use of resources and support to
developing countries, at their request, and other
stakeholders in the implementation of this framework in
synergy with other relevant frameworks, including through
the development and the strengthening of capacities, and
clear and focused programs that support States’ priorities in a
balanced and sustainable manner.
40 g
“… supporting countries, including through the national
platforms or their equivalent, in developing national plans
and monitoring trends and patterns in disaster risk, loss and
impacts…“
at the country level, UNDAF play an increasingly important role in supporting
and mainstreaming DRR in development.
In addition with regard to climate a clearer relationship with the UNFCCC is
recommended using the following language: as an intentional two-way
collaboration—a sharing of resources, framework monitoring information,
and periodic inputs into both processes to ensure dynamic, alterable actions
throughout the timeframe of the HFA2 when new information or innovation
allows."
We welcome this article, which is important to define the critical role played
by UNISDR on disaster risk reduction. However, it needs to be fully informed
by the ongoing discussions on the global architecture for supporting HFA2
implementation.
In particular, the role of UNISDR at the country level is not clear. It is arguable
whether UNISDR is best placed to provide such support given its global
mandate and lack of presence at the country level. The current articulation
presents a lop-sided view and downplays the significant support provided by
other UN agencies, international financial institutions and other international
stakeholders. It is therefore recommended to ensure adequate
representation of these entities in future drafts.
40 h
Adequate voluntary financial contributions should be
provided to the United Nations Trust Fund for Disaster
Reduction, in the effort to ensure adequate support for the
follow-up activities to this framework.
Adequate funding for UNISDR and disaster risk reduction is important. The
UN Trust Fund for DRR, it should not be mentioned as the only financing
mechanism for DRR especially in view of the increasing importance other
complementary financing mechanism such as Green Climate Fund, financing
mechanism under discussion for the SDGs etc. As regards the UN Trust Fund,
it is important to clarify that it can be accessed by government, nongovernment as well as all UN agencies.
8